<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!-- generator="b2/0.6.2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
	xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">

<channel>
	<title>Theory of Everything</title>
	<link>http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php</link>
	<description>Theory of Everything by Kaleem Aziz</description>
	<dc:language>en</dc:language>
	<dc:creator>blogs@kaleemaziz.com</dc:creator>
	<dc:rights>Copyright 2007</dc:rights>
	<dc:date>2010-03-16T16:34:41</dc:date>
	<admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://cafelog.com/?v=0.6.2.1"/>
	<admin:errorReportsTo rdf:resource="mailto:blogs@kaleemaziz.com"/>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<sy:updateBase>2000-01-01T12:00+00:00</sy:updateBase>

		<item rdf:about="http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php?p=549&amp;c=1">
		<title>Obama's plan as addressed to Muslims - work-ability.</title>
		<link>http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php?p=549&amp;c=1</link>
		<dc:date>2007-09-09T20:38:12</dc:date>
		<dc:creator>kaleemaziz (mailto:&#98;&#108;&#111;&#103;&#115;&#64;&#107;&#97;&#108;&#101;&#101;&#109;&#97;z&#105;&#122;&#46;&#99;o&#109;)</dc:creator>
		<dc:subject>UVS = You-We-Us</dc:subject>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">549@http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php</guid>
		<description>Question: Will this work http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8082862.stm (viz., Obama's address to Muslims)?
My opinion: It misses two important items, as follows.

Democracy is not a medicine that can be served. It is to be a change of mood of people who feel they are ready and want it. Otherwise, you've just welcomed to the world yet another mismanaged, corrupt, and undecisive bureaucracy that's a weight on the world and self-absorbed nationalistic to the extent of not recognizing where they fall in the world order.
Mental/Psychological/Educational gap also creates a Wealth/Maturity gap that is a 200 years or more in some cases. So while on one side you have an ill-prepared/ill-funded bureaucracy trying to handle a 95% even more immature populace (and one that fears getting itself voted out for trying anything different than the will of ill-conceived/backward populace) - their freedom creates the kind of world conflict that we are trying to solve today. a) Government atrocities and b) populace moods - both drive them into deeper isolation as well as positioning against the developed/mature cultures of the world. Is this the basic reason why tradition is always being against progress, and vice-versa? Both believe in different truths and one's good is another's bad. Suggestion is not colonization, but more pervasive global education/modernization/commercialization/privatization. That, more than military deployments or food-medicine aid will fix issues than the current band-aid patches we see being served at steep billing.


- Kaleem Aziz.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<u>Question:</u> Will this work <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8082862.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8082862.stm</a> (viz., Obama's address to Muslims)?<br />
<u>My opinion:</u> It misses two important items, as follows.<br />
<ol><br />
<li>Democracy is not a medicine that can be served. It is to be a change of mood of people who feel they are ready and want it. Otherwise, you've just welcomed to the world yet another mismanaged, corrupt, and undecisive bureaucracy that's a weight on the world and self-absorbed nationalistic to the extent of not recognizing where they fall in the world order.</li><br />
<li>Mental/Psychological/Educational gap also creates a Wealth/Maturity gap that is a 200 years or more in some cases. So while on one side you have an ill-prepared/ill-funded bureaucracy trying to handle a 95% even more immature populace (and one that fears getting itself voted out for trying anything different than the will of ill-conceived/backward populace) - their freedom creates the kind of world conflict that we are trying to solve today. a) Government atrocities and b) populace moods - both drive them into deeper isolation as well as positioning against the developed/mature cultures of the world. Is this the basic reason why tradition is always being against progress, and vice-versa? Both believe in different truths and one's good is another's bad. Suggestion is not colonization, but more pervasive global education/modernization/commercialization/privatization. That, more than military deployments or food-medicine aid will fix issues than the current band-aid patches we see being served at steep billing.</li><br />
</ol><br />
<br />
- Kaleem Aziz.]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
		<item rdf:about="http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php?p=548&amp;c=1">
		<title>Villian celebrities.</title>
		<link>http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php?p=548&amp;c=1</link>
		<dc:date>2007-09-08T20:51:37</dc:date>
		<dc:creator>kaleemaziz (mailto:&#98;logs&#64;k&#97;&#108;e&#101;&#109;az&#105;z.c&#111;m)</dc:creator>
		<dc:subject>UVS = You-We-Us</dc:subject>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">548@http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php</guid>
		<description>Villian celebrities as in: Wrong-doers are celebrated more than (or "as") the do-gooders.

This is the marketing of the news media and fashion media these days.
o The news reports the worst villians with the greatest rankings - as reporting/tracking a "serial killer" or "genocide" as the person responsible for the highest number of people killed.
o Skull, death, evil, deliberate frightful ugliness (i.e., not involuntary scars), piercing, etc., are fashion.

For example:
o OBL is celebrity because he killed 3000 people and still taunts US
o Who was Dr.Nash before Beautiful Mind? Wasn't a household name as in "No one knew!"
Exactly.

Bad is the new good?
If this is the effect of the revolution against the Church and acceptance of diversity (as in diverse viewpoints/actions) - then dog (reverse of "God") save us!
Because Church or not - we collectively become what we believe in as right/just/fair.
- It's not true that anything you do doesn't matter - nor that nothing you do matters.

Ironically, someone else had the same thoughts ...






- Kaleem Aziz.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Villian celebrities as in: Wrong-doers are celebrated more than (or "as") the do-gooders.<br />
<br />
This is the marketing of the news media and fashion media these days.<br />
o The news reports the worst villians with the greatest rankings - as reporting/tracking a "serial killer" or "genocide" as the person responsible for the highest number of people killed.<br />
o Skull, death, evil, deliberate frightful ugliness (i.e., not involuntary scars), piercing, etc., are fashion.<br />
<br />
For example:<br />
o OBL is celebrity because he killed 3000 people and still taunts US<br />
o Who was Dr.Nash before Beautiful Mind? Wasn't a household name as in "No one knew!"<br />
Exactly.<br />
<br />
<b>Bad is the new good?</b><br />
If this is the effect of the revolution against the Church and acceptance of diversity (as in diverse viewpoints/actions) - then dog (reverse of "God") save us!<br />
Because Church or not - we collectively become what we believe in as right/just/fair.<br />
- It's not true that anything you do doesn't matter - nor that nothing you do matters.<br />
<br />
Ironically, someone else had the same thoughts ...<br />
<img src="http://imgsrv.gocomics.com/dim/?fh=cb9e6fa79b2a18fa6d84dc1ad74b4c3b"><br />
<br />
<img src="http://imgsrv.gocomics.com/dim/?fh=7913383cd799c31255d62c67a5003f4e"><br />
<br />
<img src="http://imgsrv.gocomics.com/dim/?fh=bb03a284ddde63915de5eb16ecccb101"><br />
<br />
- Kaleem Aziz.]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
		<item rdf:about="http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php?p=546&amp;c=1">
		<title>AIG or PIG?</title>
		<link>http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php?p=546&amp;c=1</link>
		<dc:date>2007-09-02T20:54:34</dc:date>
		<dc:creator>kaleemaziz (mailto:&#98;l&#111;&#103;s&#64;&#107;&#97;le&#101;maz&#105;z&#46;&#99;&#111;m)</dc:creator>
		<dc:subject>Business</dc:subject>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">546@http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php</guid>
		<description>I had written (here: http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php?p=545) about VPs and their extra expected dedication/commitment to their company/role/job. The job in itself does not start and end with their authorities and pay, but in terms of "earning" that decisively (i.e., in ways other can see) make the company succeed.

For some VPs, the role starts with "I" rather than "earn it" (through proving to others, and gaining their respect/followership) - talk about babysit baby with ego, or immature morons. (If you come to Silicon Valley and flash your MIT/hardwork, little will happen till you show you made your company succeed. Of course, unless you cheat yourself into the job - which AIG must've given its executives some valuable skills at!)

So goes the story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?em=&#38;pagewanted=all

"I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money."
You sound like there was good money and bad money at AIG, and bad money never touched you. Somehow you've figured out a way to separate milk and water.

"I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It&#8217;s now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made &#8212; tacit or otherwise &#8212; with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds."
Excuse me, "political winds"?! You are an EVP, you want someone to breakdown "political winds" for you to the level of "pissed off public"?! As an EVP take ownership that agreeing to $1 salary and all bonus was your (only yours) strategic mistake. Blaming Liddy, your education, your parents, the politicians, the public, etc., isn't the issue. As an EVP, you should've been able to pinpoint the reason for your problem within a fraction of a second. That's what you are being paid for as an EVP - i.e., making decisive and as-close-to-correct-as-possible decisions (even when supplied with insufficient or misleading information) with speed and creating a following/alignment to its resolution in such a way that multiple problems are solved by your one move.

"We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house."
Huh - I want to be your plumber who promises fixing your pipes, works for 12 hours a day for a month, and ends up stopping any water in any faucet in your house. Per your logic, you'll still pay my company because I did some work. Results are the yardstick, mister. In your case, end-to-end results - you did your part of the job (of selling the units) - but the final race hasn't been run, the results are not out that all damage is undone, and/or the product is not complete for use by the consumer. What you are calling "results" or "profits" or "right to pay" is only a portion of the task - yet the task itself is not complete. 

"Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.&#8217;s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.&#8217;s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you."
This situation you are in has a bigger picture. It is far more than between you and Liddy - this is round two between AIG and the public. After what your company has done to the public, should public feel honored to pay your contract through our funds?! 
o Round #1 your company cheated us and didn't care where we ended up laying, 
o and then you got dumped by your own team mates, 
o and then you tried to jump ship but changed your mind and didn't, 
o and in round #2 public screwed your company with you and Liddy in it - gave your company money to spend, but denied you the right to fill your pockets. 
In all, for someone from MIT, what went around came around - however, your story's starting point is starting where your pain started. I would want to see how well you did at MIT and what the jack you did making responsible decisions at AIG. If I didn't read that right, you were an EVP, right?!

"So what am I to do? There&#8217;s no easy answer. I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom and have saved enough that my family is unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust. Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn&#8217;t disagree."
There you've answered it! World is fine and dandy as long as you've made money through the company and saved up - giving you the luxury to be a snob while and after the job. "Profit sharing" for you must be full of profits, and when it comes to "loss sharing" you should have the luxurious opportunity to jump ship. That's what you call fair. Now, again, you are responsible for making decisions for people around you - and for customers?! With this maturity, how again did you say you got this job?! Makes me wonder if there are more of your kind in AIG - in which case the bail out was a bigger mistake than having trusted you enough to let your company bankrupt so many of the public/corporations.

"On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less &#8212; in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients."
Did you think - or have you been in the practice of "thinking" practically/analytically - before you went public with your letter? Here's a befitting response for you:
"As soon as I finish paying the post-medical insurance but nonetheless significant medical bills for my husband's recent surgery, and recalculate our budget, factoring in the 10% involuntary pay cut together with increased state income taxes, I will turn my attention to an extravagant display of empathy for Mr. De Santis' post-tax $742,000 plight. Woe is he. &#8212; deranieri, San Diego"

You might say hardships are not a measure of business value as a response to "deranieri" above. I'll tell you, that's exactly my point to you.

If you are not a written-word person, but a picture person, hope you'll take the hint:


- Kaleem Aziz.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[I had written (here: <a href="http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php?p=545">http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php?p=545</a>) about VPs and their extra expected dedication/commitment to their company/role/job. The job in itself does not start and end with their authorities and pay, but in terms of "earning" that decisively (i.e., in ways other can see) make the company succeed.<br />
<br />
For some VPs, the role starts with "I" rather than "earn it" (through proving to others, and gaining their respect/followership) - talk about babysit baby with ego, or immature morons. (If you come to Silicon Valley and flash your MIT/hardwork, little will happen till you show you made your company succeed. Of course, unless you cheat yourself into the job - which AIG must've given its executives some valuable skills at!)<br />
<br />
So goes the story:<br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?em=&amp;pagewanted=all">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?em=&amp;pagewanted=all</a><br />
<br />
<ul><h4>"I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money."</h4></ul><br />
You sound like there was good money and bad money at AIG, and bad money never touched you. Somehow you've figured out a way to separate milk and water.<br />
<br />
<ul><h4>"I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It&#8217;s now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made &#8212; tacit or otherwise &#8212; with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds."</h4></ul><br />
Excuse me, "political winds"?! You are an EVP, you want someone to breakdown "political winds" for you to the level of "pissed off public"?! As an EVP take ownership that agreeing to $1 salary and all bonus was your (only yours) strategic mistake. Blaming Liddy, your education, your parents, the politicians, the public, etc., isn't the issue. As an EVP, you should've been able to pinpoint the reason for your problem within a fraction of a second. That's what you are being paid for as an EVP - i.e., making decisive and as-close-to-correct-as-possible decisions (even when supplied with insufficient or misleading information) with speed and creating a following/alignment to its resolution in such a way that multiple problems are solved by your one move.<br />
<br />
<ul><h4>"We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house."</h4></ul><br />
Huh - I want to be your plumber who promises fixing your pipes, works for 12 hours a day for a month, and ends up stopping any water in any faucet in your house. Per your logic, you'll still pay my company because I did some work. Results are the yardstick, mister. In your case, end-to-end results - you did your part of the job (of selling the units) - but the final race hasn't been run, the results are not out that all damage is undone, and/or the product is not complete for use by the consumer. What you are calling "results" or "profits" or "right to pay" is only a portion of the task - yet the task itself is not complete. <br />
<br />
<ul><h4>"Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.&#8217;s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.&#8217;s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you."</h4></ul><br />
This situation you are in has a bigger picture. It is far more than between you and Liddy - this is round two between AIG and the public. After what your company has done to the public, should public feel honored to pay your contract through our funds?! <br />
o Round #1 your company cheated us and didn't care where we ended up laying, <br />
o and then you got dumped by your own team mates, <br />
o and then you tried to jump ship but changed your mind and didn't, <br />
o and in round #2 public screwed your company with you and Liddy in it - gave your company money to spend, but denied you the right to fill your pockets. <br />
In all, for someone from MIT, what went around came around - however, your story's starting point is starting where your pain started. I would want to see how well you did at MIT and what the jack you did making responsible decisions at AIG. If I didn't read that right, you were an EVP, right?!<br />
<br />
<ul><h4>"So what am I to do? There&#8217;s no easy answer. I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom and have saved enough that my family is unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust. Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn&#8217;t disagree."</h4></ul><br />
There you've answered it! World is fine and dandy as long as you've made money through the company and saved up - giving you the luxury to be a snob while and after the job. "Profit sharing" for you must be full of profits, and when it comes to "loss sharing" you should have the luxurious opportunity to jump ship. That's what you call fair. Now, again, you are responsible for making decisions for people around you - and for customers?! With this maturity, how again did you say you got this job?! Makes me wonder if there are more of your kind in AIG - in which case the bail out was a bigger mistake than having trusted you enough to let your company bankrupt so many of the public/corporations.<br />
<br />
<ul><h4>"On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less &#8212; in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients."</h4></ul><br />
Did you think - or have you been in the practice of "thinking" practically/analytically - before you went public with your letter? Here's a befitting response for you:<br />
<ul><ul><h3>"As soon as I finish paying the post-medical insurance but nonetheless significant medical bills for my husband's recent surgery, and recalculate our budget, factoring in the 10% involuntary pay cut together with increased state income taxes, I will turn my attention to an extravagant display of empathy for Mr. De Santis' post-tax $742,000 plight. Woe is he. &#8212; deranieri, San Diego"</h3></ul></ul><br />
<br />
You might say hardships are not a measure of business value as a response to "deranieri" above. I'll tell you, that's exactly my point to you.<br />
<br />
If you are not a written-word person, but a picture person, hope you'll take the hint:<br />
<img src="http://imgsrv.gocomics.com/dim/?fh=d80ffe1d8bfba085a31b4e723053f116"><br />
<br />
- Kaleem Aziz.]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
		<item rdf:about="http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php?p=545&amp;c=1">
		<title>Product Manager, VP and CEO.</title>
		<link>http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php?p=545&amp;c=1</link>
		<dc:date>2007-09-01T22:08:29</dc:date>
		<dc:creator>kaleemaziz (mailto:&#98;&#108;&#111;g&#115;&#64;&#107;&#97;lee&#109;a&#122;&#105;z.&#99;&#111;m)</dc:creator>
		<dc:subject>Business</dc:subject>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">545@http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php</guid>
		<description>Product Manager:

A Product Manager's role is to create sustainable and profitable monetization.

Where 
* "sustainable" refers to the following attributes: repeatable, unique differentiated strengths, difficult to copy, and those that add enough value to customer the pain points of customers that they are willing to pay a price to have the product.

For example, your product would not be sustainable:
- if what your product does is easy/simple to do, then the customer would do it themselves rather than pay for your product.
- if it wasn't repeatable, then a charlatan or copycat could make one time profits too by cheating or selling knock-offs.

* "profitable" refers to producing/creating it with far fewer means than the rewards over the entire term of funding; so there's enough to go around for the salaries and benefits of all those involved in the making of the product, for the payment of the materials/tools/space required, for the taxes and for the giving back to the community.

Sustainable profitable monetization implicitly means it is not enough that the Product Manager wins the battles/politics - he must win the war in the market.

In essence, Product Manager has to see that his product is (or will be) profitable to the extent paying for the salaries and benefits of all involved (not to mention his/her salary+benefits+"bonuses"); although he/she doesn't directly manage the employees who make the product, but only aligns them through their managers.

VP:

General's/VP's job is to make his side win, using Foot Soldiers who just want to be on [or, will switch to] whichever side is winning.

Since holding the job title doesn't define the mentality of the person - so it's completely possible the General/VP has the Foot Soldier's mentality to running the company (and switching sides), and some Foot Soldiers having a General's/VP's mentality of riding the tough times through - even if it means till the end.

CEO:

A CEOs role is creating a sustainable and economical/profitable organization using a complex people matching game. The people matching game is explained here: http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php?p=313. Point being, the CEO needs to match the needs of the financier(s)/VCs/shareholders to make profits, with the needs of workers and managers to get a salary+benefits+bonuses and the needs of customers willing to pay for a product/service that eliminates their inconveniences/pains/struggles.

- Kaleem Aziz.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<b><u>Product Manager:</u></b><br />
<br />
A Product Manager's role is to create sustainable and profitable monetization.<br />
<br />
Where <br />
* "sustainable" refers to the following attributes: repeatable, unique differentiated strengths, difficult to copy, and those that add enough value to customer the pain points of customers that they are willing to pay a price to have the product.<br />
<br />
For example, your product would not be sustainable:<br />
- if what your product does is easy/simple to do, then the customer would do it themselves rather than pay for your product.<br />
- if it wasn't repeatable, then a charlatan or copycat could make one time profits too by cheating or selling knock-offs.<br />
<br />
* "profitable" refers to producing/creating it with far fewer means than the rewards over the entire term of funding; so there's enough to go around for the salaries and benefits of all those involved in the making of the product, for the payment of the materials/tools/space required, for the taxes and for the giving back to the community.<br />
<br />
Sustainable profitable monetization implicitly means it is not enough that the Product Manager wins the battles/politics - he must win the war in the market.<br />
<br />
In essence, Product Manager has to see that his product is (or will be) profitable to the extent paying for the salaries and benefits of all involved (not to mention his/her salary+benefits+"bonuses"); although he/she doesn't directly manage the employees who make the product, but only aligns them through their managers.<br />
<br />
<b><u>VP:</u></b><br />
<br />
General's/VP's job is to make his side win, using Foot Soldiers who just want to be on [or, will switch to] whichever side is winning.<br />
<br />
Since holding the job title doesn't define the mentality of the person - so it's completely possible the General/VP has the Foot Soldier's mentality to running the company (and switching sides), and some Foot Soldiers having a General's/VP's mentality of riding the tough times through - even if it means till the end.<br />
<br />
<b><u>CEO:</u></b><br />
<br />
A CEOs role is creating a sustainable and economical/profitable organization using a complex people matching game. The people matching game is explained here: http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php?p=313. Point being, the CEO needs to match the needs of the financier(s)/VCs/shareholders to make profits, with the needs of workers and managers to get a salary+benefits+bonuses and the needs of customers willing to pay for a product/service that eliminates their inconveniences/pains/struggles.<br />
<br />
- Kaleem Aziz.]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
		<item rdf:about="http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php?p=544&amp;c=1">
		<title>Logic of Tit-for-Tat.</title>
		<link>http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php?p=544&amp;c=1</link>
		<dc:date>2007-08-26T20:29:43</dc:date>
		<dc:creator>kaleemaziz (mailto:b&#108;&#111;&#103;&#115;&#64;k&#97;leemaziz&#46;co&#109;)</dc:creator>
		<dc:subject>UVS = You-We-Us</dc:subject>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">544@http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php</guid>
		<description>Tit-for-tat teaches the perpetrator what if feels like to the victim, but makes the victim the perpetrator - which over a time of such circular disputes puts both parties at equal blame for their pains. They then hate each other without knowing how it all started, what they are fighting/arguing for and upon what event they will forgive and stop. However, if there's no "tit" (victim's matching response) for "tat" (perpetrator's unfair actions), then there's just the "tat" after "tat" pushing the victim lower and lower into pain, suffering and humiliation, while the perpetrator starts to believe he's a force of nature that can do anything to others. That's where fair governance comes in. People of all colors/beliefs/professions come together and stop the bad at the level of "tat" by the perpetrator and put him on notice that his "tat" is going to get him in trouble not just with the victim but pitches him against all. The victim doesn't have to respond with a "tit" in this case as justice was served in a more crushing/deserving way than he as one person could ever have served and silenced the perpetrator's first action, so it doesn't turn into repeated actions.

As a side humor, however, guys would keep on doing "tat" to pretty girls if they keep on getting "tit" from them in response. Well, when it comes to that, there's no simple logic/method/formula.

- Kaleem Aziz.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Tit-for-tat teaches the perpetrator what if feels like to the victim, but makes the victim the perpetrator - which over a time of such circular disputes puts both parties at equal blame for their pains. They then hate each other without knowing how it all started, what they are fighting/arguing for and upon what event they will forgive and stop. However, if there's no "tit" (victim's matching response) for "tat" (perpetrator's unfair actions), then there's just the "tat" after "tat" pushing the victim lower and lower into pain, suffering and humiliation, while the perpetrator starts to believe he's a force of nature that can do anything to others. That's where fair governance comes in. People of all colors/beliefs/professions come together and stop the bad at the level of "tat" by the perpetrator and put him on notice that his "tat" is going to get him in trouble not just with the victim but pitches him against all. The victim doesn't have to respond with a "tit" in this case as justice was served in a more crushing/deserving way than he as one person could ever have served and silenced the perpetrator's first action, so it doesn't turn into repeated actions.<br />
<br />
<ul>As a side humor, however, guys would keep on doing "tat" to pretty girls if they keep on getting "tit" from them in response. Well, when it comes to that, there's no simple logic/method/formula.</ul><br />
<br />
- Kaleem Aziz.]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
		<item rdf:about="http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php?p=543&amp;c=1">
		<title>Our era - when more is less.</title>
		<link>http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php?p=543&amp;c=1</link>
		<dc:date>2007-08-25T20:23:25</dc:date>
		<dc:creator>kaleemaziz (mailto:bl&#111;g&#115;&#64;&#107;a&#108;&#101;e&#109;azi&#122;&#46;&#99;&#111;m)</dc:creator>
		<dc:subject>UVS = You-We-Us</dc:subject>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">543@http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php</guid>
		<description>Although from e-mail forwards, I liked the following:

The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings but shorter tempers, wider Freeways,  but narrower viewpoints. We spend more, but have less, we buy more, but enjoy less. We have bigger houses and smaller families, more conveniences, but less time. We have more degrees but less sense, more knowledge, but less judgment, more experts, yet more problems, more medicine, but less wellness. 

We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get too angry, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too little, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom.   

We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often. 

We've learned how to make a living, but not a life. We've added years to life not life to years. We've been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet a new neighbor. We conquered outer space but not inner space. We've done larger things, but not better things. 

We've cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul. We've conquered the atom, but not our prejudice. We write more, but learn less. We plan more, but accomplish less. We've learned to rush, but not to wait. We build more computers to hold more information, to produce more copies than ever, but we communicate less and less. 

These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion, big men and small character, steep profits and shallow relationships. These are the days of two incomes but more divorce, fancier houses, but broken homes. These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throwaway morality, one night stands, overweight bodies, and pills that do everything from cheer, to quit, to kill. It is a time when there is much in the showroom window and nothing in the stockroom.

- George Carlin

Isn't this what Annie Leonard also points out in her StoryOfStuff.com clip at 15:40 minutes through the video? She shows it with the National Happiness chart, and follows it with the enormously well done impression of people working harder to just switch between popular fashions/fads created by media/marketing of commercial corporations. Look at who is playing who for a fool. 

Luxury
The whole idea of "luxury", infact, is built on the glitter of appearance/packaging with no additional real value added to the task/need - and the bragging right to be able to afford it is enough for the seekers of these luxury goods to keep on wanting to earn more to spend on the extra glitter. Of course, they must standout when they do. But others are not being left behind with "affordable luxury" - made cheaper by mass production or false look-alikes. Then people have to work for super-luxury that truly can't be mass produced. Then, in order to take care that their luxury is not contaminated by the commoners' presence, the luxury seekers have to start finding themselves more detached/alone/aloof from normal people. So they may be affording the costliest things, but their attempt to standout results in their inability to mingle and socialize - as they out-fashion almost everyone else out. Instead of sincere relationships, they either have false ones or they need to choose to have none at all. 

Put that into an iterative circle like that of Anne Leonard's, and you know where our world is within a few iterations and where it is headed. Our love of machines/money/toys/things supersedes that of our love for man/person/friend/family/human/mankind/people/humanity. Whereas the reality is that these machines/toys/things/money have a strong correlation to the "creator(s) of the thing" i.e., his/her talent/ability/willingness/motivation/happiness. When you take that away, or make the creator's motivation itself as some other machine/toy/thing - you quickly see the bonds between people lost - unless they are through gifts/machines/toys/things that come through them. As a result, people no longer share themselves, they share what they can buy/afford in the store. There's no special touch to giving - and world is quickly getting used to it that there is no one special - except for the one that can afford them the most things they need. This is a key driver to false/pretend relationships based on an underlying pretext/motive. And the belief that money makes the world go round - without the ability to realize that the money will not save them in a desert of machines if there are no people behind them. And this belief that money alone is the supreme thing leads to comments to destroy people of a kind for the actions of one (or to just win lots of money), not realizing that people with such a race/creed/belief-system in reference has more than a right to live, those people basically provide our world (and the person making the racial comment) with a crucial component of the eco-system. That's the "narrow viewpoint" that the author George Carlin is pointing to above. Now do you/we see how the materials/consumption focused economy screws up the lives/views/happiness of its people?!

- Kaleem Aziz.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Although from e-mail forwards, I liked the following:<br />
<br />
<ul>The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings but shorter tempers, wider Freeways,  but narrower viewpoints. We spend more, but have less, we buy more, but enjoy less. We have bigger houses and smaller families, more conveniences, but less time. We have more degrees but less sense, more knowledge, but less judgment, more experts, yet more problems, more medicine, but less wellness. <br />
<br />
We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get too angry, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too little, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom.   <br />
<br />
We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often. <br />
<br />
We've learned how to make a living, but not a life. We've added years to life not life to years. We've been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet a new neighbor. We conquered outer space but not inner space. We've done larger things, but not better things. <br />
<br />
We've cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul. We've conquered the atom, but not our prejudice. We write more, but learn less. We plan more, but accomplish less. We've learned to rush, but not to wait. We build more computers to hold more information, to produce more copies than ever, but we communicate less and less. <br />
<br />
These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion, big men and small character, steep profits and shallow relationships. These are the days of two incomes but more divorce, fancier houses, but broken homes. These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throwaway morality, one night stands, overweight bodies, and pills that do everything from cheer, to quit, to kill. It is a time when there is much in the showroom window and nothing in the stockroom.<br />
<br />
- George Carlin</ul><br />
<br />
Isn't this what Annie Leonard also points out in her StoryOfStuff.com clip at 15:40 minutes through the video? She shows it with the National Happiness chart, and follows it with the enormously well done impression of people working harder to just switch between popular fashions/fads created by media/marketing of commercial corporations. Look at who is playing who for a fool. <br />
<br />
<b>Luxury</b><br />
The whole idea of "luxury", infact, is built on the glitter of appearance/packaging with no additional real value added to the task/need - and the bragging right to be able to afford it is enough for the seekers of these luxury goods to keep on wanting to earn more to spend on the extra glitter. Of course, they must standout when they do. But others are not being left behind with "affordable luxury" - made cheaper by mass production or false look-alikes. Then people have to work for super-luxury that truly can't be mass produced. Then, in order to take care that their luxury is not contaminated by the commoners' presence, the luxury seekers have to start finding themselves more detached/alone/aloof from normal people. So they may be affording the costliest things, but their attempt to standout results in their inability to mingle and socialize - as they out-fashion almost everyone else out. Instead of sincere relationships, they either have false ones or they need to choose to have none at all. <br />
<br />
Put that into an iterative circle like that of Anne Leonard's, and you know where our world is within a few iterations and where it is headed. Our love of machines/money/toys/things supersedes that of our love for man/person/friend/family/human/mankind/people/humanity. Whereas the reality is that these machines/toys/things/money have a strong correlation to the "creator(s) of the thing" i.e., his/her talent/ability/willingness/motivation/happiness. When you take that away, or make the creator's motivation itself as some other machine/toy/thing - you quickly see the bonds between people lost - unless they are through gifts/machines/toys/things that come through them. As a result, people no longer share themselves, they share what they can buy/afford in the store. There's no special touch to giving - and world is quickly getting used to it that there is no one special - except for the one that can afford them the most things they need. This is a key driver to false/pretend relationships based on an underlying pretext/motive. And the belief that money makes the world go round - without the ability to realize that the money will not save them in a desert of machines if there are no people behind them. And this belief that money alone is the supreme thing leads to comments to destroy people of a kind for the actions of one (or to just win lots of money), not realizing that people with such a race/creed/belief-system in reference has more than a right to live, those people basically provide our world (and the person making the racial comment) with a crucial component of the eco-system. That's the "narrow viewpoint" that the author George Carlin is pointing to above. Now do you/we see how the materials/consumption focused economy screws up the lives/views/happiness of its people?!<br />
<br />
- Kaleem Aziz.]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
		<item rdf:about="http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php?p=542&amp;c=1">
		<title>Wikipedia - quality information shared for free.</title>
		<link>http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php?p=542&amp;c=1</link>
		<dc:date>2007-08-19T20:40:09</dc:date>
		<dc:creator>kaleemaziz (mailto:blogs&#64;&#107;alee&#109;az&#105;z.&#99;o&#109;)</dc:creator>
		<dc:subject>UVS = You-We-Us</dc:subject>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">542@http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php</guid>
		<description>Wikipedia gives a new definition to "for the people, by the people and of the people" to information on the Internet - mainly by notching up on the quality and reliability as needed by an average person. If you think you owe the world back something (i.e., even after having paid the taxes :-)), suggest you donate to these few folks on doing a good job that touches so many lives positively. 


"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge."

---
If this donation helps you cut down on your donations to your favorite religious church/community, that in my perspective would be an added bonus to the world! In my perspective, not donating to religious organizations would save the world from the other source of (mis-)information. 

Again, donating to cancer research, autism research, green energy research, Wikipedia like organizations, etc. alongside your favorite religious church/community is good either way. It'd be better if you'd donate to the former types and avoid the latter types. 

But, if you just work and pay your taxes, hey, you are doing enough good just by that. Who am I to say where you use your money? I'll probably say where my government should be using that money - i.e., with my vote and voice.

- Kaleem Aziz.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Wikipedia gives a new definition to "for the people, by the people and of the people" to information on the Internet - mainly by notching up on the quality and reliability as needed by an average person. If you think you owe the world back something (i.e., even after having paid the taxes <img src='http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/b2-img/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':&#160;-&#160;)&#160;' />), suggest you donate to these few folks on doing a good job that touches so many lives positively. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate/en"><img border="0" alt="Wikipedia Affiliate Button" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/1a/2008_fundraiser_banner_button-en.png" /></a><br />
<h2>"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge."</h2><br />
<br />
---<br />
If this donation helps you cut down on your donations to your favorite religious church/community, that in my perspective would be an added bonus to the world! In my perspective, not donating to religious organizations would save the world from the other source of (mis-)information. <br />
<br />
Again, donating to cancer research, autism research, green energy research, Wikipedia like organizations, etc. alongside your favorite religious church/community is good either way. It'd be <i>better</i> if you'd donate to the former types and avoid the latter types. <br />
<br />
But, if you just work and pay your taxes, hey, you are doing enough good just by that. Who am I to say where you use your money? I'll probably say where my government should be using that money - i.e., with my vote and voice.<br />
<br />
- Kaleem Aziz.]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
		<item rdf:about="http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php?p=541&amp;c=1">
		<title>Materials Economy - with a link to the Story of Stuff.</title>
		<link>http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php?p=541&amp;c=1</link>
		<dc:date>2007-08-18T22:57:11</dc:date>
		<dc:creator>kaleemaziz (mailto:bl&#111;gs&#64;&#107;a&#108;&#101;&#101;maz&#105;&#122;.c&#111;&#109;)</dc:creator>
		<dc:subject>UVS = You-We-Us</dc:subject>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">541@http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php</guid>
		<description>The following video tutorial talked about, what the author called, a "Materials Economy".

URL: http://www.storyofstuff.com/


As I've noted (mostly to myself) that the current economics is too heavily a materials-based and labor-based economics. We give fixed prices instead of barter/auction values in the name of convenience and then build currencies on top of currencies (i.e., stocks, bonds, international currencies, metals, etc.) to use the same fixed price predictability. Even our ways to intervene into the economy are more interest rate and money supply based rather than an actual ability to fire up the economy. The availability of resources may not have changed, yet the availability of the money/currency to trade those resources can dry up - causing anywhere from a recession, or a depression to a great depression. In other words, no real famine, flood, earthquake, volcano, or fire ruins the life of millions - money's regulation and availability does. 

Most people would respond to that saying "Of course, money is important. It clearly decides life and death as you can buy basic things like food and water with it! Therefore, it's in our nature to grab money by whatever way we can. What's your point?" My point is simply that if there's still trees, fruits, animals, equipment, etc., why should millions die hungry in a depression/recession? If money is like a movie ticket, the ticket is deciding whether you get food/medicine or not for your children - even though you know all the abilities to have it provided to "all" still exist intact? I can understand not getting to view a movie till you show that you paid for it - so someone who made the movie is rewarded/thanked for his efforts to "entertain" you. But in the case of the depression/recession, there are not enough people with movie tickets - as well as the movie makers don't get enough audience. Both get poorer because the audience that wants to see can't afford it, and the movie maker can't afford to give away the movie for free. The poor die, the movie industry collapses - at around the same time, one after the other. I mean that should seem ridiculous - right, the movie maker exists, the movie exists, the audience exists, the audience's intent to go the movie exists, etc., etc., meaning all the ingredients are there, except there aren't enough movie tickets! You can extend the same idea to distributing pizzas with coupons - and not having enough coupons to go around. There are enough hungry people who can't afford the pizza, there are enough pizza makers but they don't get customers, and very few folks have tons of coupons for which they can't eat all the pizzas they can buy. As you can see, the problem is not that there's a drought/famine, flood, fire, earthquake, volcano, farms lost, disease, plague, etc., it is the missing coupon/ticket/money/paper that's causing the pain on a large scale to millions of people!!!

That's why I think current economics is all about materials and labor; and less about values. Once you base an economy on values, these problems go away. Of course, implementing an economy based on values is not simple and without its own problems either.

In any case, this reminds me of Macro Economic class on solving a depression. Creation of jobs and not trying to balance government books was the key. However, one comment made by my professor held me back - and showed how deeply today's economics is about materials/things/objects/stuff/labor than it is about values. She said the leading economist (who is now a legend on solving depressions) believed government should create jobs - it didn't matter if it paid 1/2 of the people to dig a hole and the other 1/2 of the people to fill the hole. It struck me as an economic concept to circulate the money to revive an economy by passing around labor/material rather than thinking about a) the value added to the community and b) the values of the people in it in circulating the money as would be needed in a values-based economy.

- Kaleem Aziz.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[The following video tutorial talked about, what the author called, a "Materials Economy".<br />
<br />
<b>URL: <a href="http://www.storyofstuff.com/">http://www.storyofstuff.com/</a></b><br />
<object classid="clsid<img src='http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/b2-img/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif' alt=':&#160;D&#160;' />27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/<br />
pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=7,0,19,0" width="468" height="60"><param name="movie" value="http://www.storyofstuff.com/banners/annie_banner_horiz.swf" /><param name="quality" value="high" /><embed src="http://www.storyofstuff.com/banners/annie_banner_horiz.swf" quality="high" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="468" height="60"></embed></param></param></object><br />
<br />
As I've noted (mostly to myself) that the current economics is too heavily a materials-based and labor-based economics. We give fixed prices instead of barter/auction values in the name of convenience and then build currencies on top of currencies (i.e., stocks, bonds, international currencies, metals, etc.) to use the same fixed price predictability. Even our ways to intervene into the economy are more interest rate and money supply based rather than an actual ability to fire up the economy. The availability of resources may not have changed, yet the availability of the money/currency to trade those resources can dry up - causing anywhere from a recession, or a depression to a great depression. In other words, no real famine, flood, earthquake, volcano, or fire ruins the life of millions - money's regulation and availability does. <br />
<br />
Most people would respond to that saying "Of course, money is important. It clearly decides life and death as you can buy basic things like food and water with it! Therefore, it's in our nature to grab money by whatever way we can. What's your point?" My point is simply that if there's still trees, fruits, animals, equipment, etc., why should millions die hungry in a depression/recession? If money is like a movie ticket, the ticket is deciding whether you get food/medicine or not for your children - even though you know all the abilities to have it provided to "all" still exist intact? I can understand not getting to view a movie till you show that you paid for it - so someone who made the movie is rewarded/thanked for his efforts to "entertain" you. But in the case of the depression/recession, there are not enough people with movie tickets - as well as the movie makers don't get enough audience. Both get poorer because the audience that wants to see can't afford it, and the movie maker can't afford to give away the movie for free. The poor die, the movie industry collapses - at around the same time, one after the other. I mean that should seem ridiculous - right, the movie maker exists, the movie exists, the audience exists, the audience's intent to go the movie exists, etc., etc., meaning all the ingredients are there, except there aren't enough movie tickets! You can extend the same idea to distributing pizzas with coupons - and not having enough coupons to go around. There are enough hungry people who can't afford the pizza, there are enough pizza makers but they don't get customers, and very few folks have tons of coupons for which they can't eat all the pizzas they can buy. As you can see, the problem is not that there's a drought/famine, flood, fire, earthquake, volcano, farms lost, disease, plague, etc., it is the missing coupon/ticket/money/paper that's causing the pain on a large scale to millions of people!!!<br />
<br />
That's why I think current economics is all about materials and labor; and less about values. Once you base an economy on values, these problems go away. Of course, implementing an economy based on values is not simple and without its own problems either.<br />
<br />
In any case, this reminds me of Macro Economic class on solving a depression. Creation of jobs and not trying to balance government books was the key. However, one comment made by my professor held me back - and showed how deeply today's economics is about materials/things/objects/stuff/labor than it is about values. She said the leading economist (who is now a legend on solving depressions) believed government should create jobs - it didn't matter if it paid 1/2 of the people to dig a hole and the other 1/2 of the people to fill the hole. It struck me as an economic concept to circulate the money to revive an economy by passing around labor/material rather than thinking about a) the value added to the community and b) the values of the people in it in circulating the money as would be needed in a values-based economy.<br />
<br />
- Kaleem Aziz.]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
		<item rdf:about="http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php?p=540&amp;c=1">
		<title>Anger Management for Women.</title>
		<link>http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php?p=540&amp;c=1</link>
		<dc:date>2007-08-12T01:47:12</dc:date>
		<dc:creator>kaleemaziz (mailto:blo&#103;s&#64;k&#97;le&#101;&#109;azi&#122;&#46;c&#111;m)</dc:creator>
		<dc:subject>UVS = You-We-Us</dc:subject>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">540@http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php</guid>
		<description>For a bit there, I thought it was just me about the character in a lot of women these days. Note that I'm still on the equality for women track - but I continue to mean equality of opportunity and evaluation/judgement of merit of women just as it is for anyone else. I don't mean them getting to each be a Queen for-free for the sake of the inequality that their predecessor women have had in the past. To further clarify, what I mean through equality of women is their ability to be the same as a man in that profession/role in the society; I do not mean them having to get the upper hand or advantage just because of their "gender" with nothing else better in them. But what I'll be writing below is about a disparity - "individual freedom" being skewed from "equality of women" to "supremacy of women". It is not just to the extent of promoting "feminism", it is going to a fanaticism about it - where spoiled brats are claiming a right to be that way at the cost of social tolerance of "feminine supremacists".

So many women seem to be getting so angry so quickly, and not because they have something going on that makes them so. These women seem to have money, no problems with anything in particular, no children, and an understanding husband - everything that a dream life constitutes - but are pushy, rash, extraordinarily mean and plain crazy. Be in shopping aisles where they'll run you over with their shopping cart if you aren't watching your back, to yelling at their husband/children/parents as if they own the world and the world wasn't delivered to them on time and per the quality that matches their tastes. However, there seems to be no way to help them - they just burn through relationships (even those that care for them) like acid.

I can understand if the woman in question is a Mom with serious problems financially, abusive husband, sick/dying parents, chores with children, tasking job, and are purely in hurry - such that they expect others to operate as fast and as direct as they do. But that's not the trend here - these are yet to be Mom or recent Moms, housewives, financially taken care of by a wealthy husband, everything from their food to the cleaning of aquarium to pet grooming of their pets is done at husband's expense, parents are practically giving them the "Princess treatment" because they don't want her temper to ruin things for them as well as her, and she's only responsible for chasing her pleasures in a big SUV. This all-bills-paid and thoroughly-spoiled scenario is what is making these people so much trouble for the family. 

It appears a lot happens for these women the "American way" - from a pink flowery bedroom since childhood to protective parents (most likely her mother) who believed she should have everything. Mind shudders to think what men going after such women are thinking, if not to believe that they are blind - they've not had a sister or a mom they could compare against. But once caught up in such women's web, it must a trap. You can only wish you'll be devoured of your life and spit first, rather than have to be in her relationship any longer.

We are seeing husbands jumping over a cliff (i.e., committing suicide) for not being able to manage such a woman. Yet the society believes husband should be the "door-opening, purse-carrying, seating-her-before-himself, let-the-women-run-the-world while they-themselves-are-the-worker-bees, bring-her-flowers, romantic-date orchestrating, expensive-cruise affording and so on" guys. And when this spoiled-beyond-imagination woman spoils her own husbands' chances of promotion, socializing, etc., she's stabbing her own dollar stream to power her SUV as much as ruining her husband's blood-n-sweat efforts/dreams. But these aggressive women move on - to greener pastures, at their husband's cost.

May be this is the American woman of today. Instead of the hardworking lady sharing and caring of her relationships, or an example Mom/Daughter/Wife for others to follow; we have in the name of individual-freedom an industrialized perfect-consumer who frequents malls but has a worse temper than the one who works two of the three shifts to feed family. The problem is that there's no way to contain this acidic person as they burn through relationships at home, outdoors, in travel, in parties, etc. You'd hope these folks would find themselves a hole and leave others alone; or would be outcast from social circles until they learned to behave better for their own good - but when these are the majority, they find other "independent" or "feminine supremacist fanatics" women that think this is "right" - validating their anger/hate/haste. Before you know it, you don't have any other kind crossing your path - and if you ever do, they'll soon be converted into believing these other women have everything from basics to fashion (and, not to mention, others will work on making her one of theirs). 

There still are great women who work hard on their own, earn their respect, are an example relationship-maker, are just an inspiring success, and don't behave in a way where haste-precedes-reason (i.e., stay away from "Princess attitude"). But they are because they are too strong - due to something in them or their past; but definitely not because of the system, instead they are so despite the system. They are the rarely seen exception, not the commonly occurring norm.

- Kaleem Aziz.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[For a bit there, I thought it was just me about the character in a lot of women these days. Note that I'm still on the equality for women track - but I continue to mean equality of opportunity and evaluation/judgement of merit of women just as it is for anyone else. I don't mean them getting to each be a Queen for-free for the sake of the inequality that their predecessor women have had in the past. To further clarify, what I mean through equality of women is their ability to be the same as a man in that profession/role in the society; I do not mean them having to get the upper hand or advantage just because of their "gender" with nothing else better in them. But what I'll be writing below is about a disparity - "individual freedom" being skewed from "equality of women" to "supremacy of women". It is not just to the extent of promoting "feminism", it is going to a fanaticism about it - where spoiled brats are claiming a right to be that way at the cost of social tolerance of "feminine supremacists".<br />
<br />
So many women seem to be getting so angry so quickly, and not because they have something going on that makes them so. These women seem to have money, no problems with anything in particular, no children, and an understanding husband - everything that a dream life constitutes - but are pushy, rash, <b>extraordinarily mean</b> and plain crazy. Be in shopping aisles where they'll run you over with their shopping cart if you aren't watching your back, to yelling at their husband/children/parents <b><i>as if they own the world and the world wasn't delivered to them</i></b> on time and per the quality that matches their tastes. However, there seems to be no way to help them - they just burn through relationships (even those that care for them) like acid.<br />
<br />
I can understand if the woman in question is a Mom with serious problems financially, abusive husband, sick/dying parents, chores with children, tasking job, and are purely in hurry - such that they expect others to operate as fast and as direct as they do. But that's not the trend here - these are yet to be Mom or recent Moms, housewives, financially taken care of by a wealthy husband, everything from their food to the cleaning of aquarium to pet grooming of their pets is done at husband's expense, parents are practically giving them the "Princess treatment" because they don't want her temper to ruin things for them as well as her, and she's only responsible for chasing her pleasures in a big SUV. This all-bills-paid and thoroughly-spoiled scenario is what is making these people so much trouble for the family. <br />
<br />
It appears a lot happens for these women the "American way" - from a pink flowery bedroom since childhood to protective parents (most likely her mother) who believed she should have everything. Mind shudders to think what men going after such women are thinking, if not to believe that they are blind - they've not had a sister or a mom they could compare against. But once caught up in such women's web, it must a trap. You can only wish you'll be devoured of your life and spit first, rather than have to be in her relationship any longer.<br />
<br />
We are seeing husbands jumping over a cliff (i.e., committing suicide) for not being able to manage such a woman. Yet the society believes husband should be the "door-opening, purse-carrying, seating-her-before-himself, let-the-women-run-the-world while they-themselves-are-the-worker-bees, bring-her-flowers, romantic-date orchestrating, expensive-cruise affording and so on" guys. And when this spoiled-beyond-imagination woman spoils her own husbands' chances of promotion, socializing, etc., she's stabbing her own dollar stream to power her SUV as much as ruining her husband's blood-n-sweat efforts/dreams. But these aggressive women move on - to greener pastures, at their husband's cost.<br />
<br />
May be this is the American woman of today. Instead of the hardworking lady sharing and caring of her relationships, or an example Mom/Daughter/Wife for others to follow; we have in the name of individual-freedom an industrialized perfect-consumer who frequents malls but has a worse temper than the one who works two of the three shifts to feed family. The problem is that there's no way to contain this acidic person as they burn through relationships at home, outdoors, in travel, in parties, etc. You'd hope these folks would find themselves a hole and leave others alone; or would be outcast from social circles until they learned to behave better for their own good - but when these are the majority, they find other "independent" or "feminine supremacist fanatics" women that think this is "right" - validating their anger/hate/haste. Before you know it, you don't have any other kind crossing your path - and if you ever do, they'll soon be converted into believing these other women have everything from basics to fashion (and, not to mention, others will work on making her one of theirs). <br />
<br />
There still are great women who work hard on their own, earn their respect, are an example relationship-maker, are just an inspiring success, and don't behave in a way where haste-precedes-reason (i.e., stay away from "Princess attitude"). But they are because they are too strong - due to something in them or their past; but definitely not because of the system, instead they are so despite the system. They are the rarely seen exception, not the commonly occurring norm.<br />
<br />
- Kaleem Aziz.]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
		<item rdf:about="http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php?p=539&amp;c=1">
		<title>Bias.</title>
		<link>http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php?p=539&amp;c=1</link>
		<dc:date>2007-08-11T23:35:32</dc:date>
		<dc:creator>kaleemaziz (mailto:&#98;&#108;&#111;&#103;s&#64;k&#97;l&#101;&#101;&#109;a&#122;&#105;z&#46;c&#111;&#109;)</dc:creator>
		<dc:subject>UVS = You-We-Us</dc:subject>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">539@http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php</guid>
		<description>Bias refers to the act of forming the impression about a person/entity first and then evaluating his/her comments or actions. This way you judge the person whether or not he says/does something, and irrespective of how he says/does something. It's an attitude that doesn't allow you to gain a new impression about another person/group, even if their nature/actions are different from the past.

Normal or sane behavior would be to give a person/entity a clean slate, and let their actions and words define their role. That way, if a person changes his/her ways, you are looking at the new person and not using the past to judge them instead of the new change that people are capable of. And a changed person is essentially capable of repairing the harm done due to his/her past, and then do some more good.

- Kaleem Aziz.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Bias refers to the act of forming the impression about a person/entity first and then evaluating his/her comments or actions. This way you judge the person whether or not he says/does something, and irrespective of how he says/does something. It's an attitude that doesn't allow you to gain a new impression about another person/group, even if their nature/actions are different from the past.<br />
<br />
Normal or sane behavior would be to give a person/entity a clean slate, and let their actions and words define their role. That way, if a person changes his/her ways, you are looking at the new person and not using the past to judge them instead of the new change that people are capable of. And a changed person is essentially capable of repairing the harm done due to his/her past, and then do some more good.<br />
<br />
- Kaleem Aziz.]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>